How old are the 12 Apostles?

[patrick457]

The Greek and Russian Orthodox liturgies have not changed as much as those in the Latin West. Apart for a few feast days, Matthew is read on Sundays from Pentecost. Luke follows later in the year and Mark begins during Lent. John is read in the Easter period. The Melkite Church, which traces herself back to Antioch, has a similar order, as do the Byzantine Churches. This points to the early Christians being familiar with Luke being used prior to Mark.

Actually, the order the Gospels are read in the Orthodox Lectionary are a bit more jumbled than you suggest. But the general structure is:

John: Read mainly from Pascha until Pentecost Sunday.
Matthew: Divided over seventeen weeks beginning with the Monday of the Holy Spirit (the day after Pentecost). From the twelfth week, it is read on Saturdays and Sundays while Mark is read on the remaining weekdays.
Luke: Divided over nineteen weeks beginning on the Monday after the Elevation of the Holy Cross. From the thirteenth week, it is only read on Saturdays and Sundays, while Mark is read on the remaining weekdays.
Mark: Read during the period of Great Lent on Saturdays and Sundays with the exception of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, and Mondays to Fridays from the twelfth to the seventeenth and the thirtieth to the thirty-second week after Pentecost, the Week of the Prodigal Son, and Meat Fare Week.

This does not count feastdays where one of the four is read.

By the way, why don’t we compare lectionaries?

 

[patrick457]

Regarding Irenaeus… Here’s what he wrote about the order in which the gospels were published, i.e. not the order in which they were written. (This quotation comes from the Latin translation of his work. But we also possess the same passage in the original Greek as quoted by Eusebius. This confirms the Latin translation is accurate.)Matthew also brought out a written Gospel among the Jews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the Church. But after their demise, Mark himself the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke too, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel which was being preached by him. Later on too, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even reclined on his bosom, he too brought out a Gospel while he was dwelling in Ephesus of Asia. ((RO 128-9: IAH 3. 1,1; and EH 5: 8, 2)).

Well, here’s one which has the Greek and Latin and English in parallel columns.

And, you’re probably right. St. Irenaeus (and perhaps Origen) does not explicitly mention the order of composition of the synoptics. While Irenaeus claims John wrote “later,” he lists Matthew, Mark and Luke with parallel conjunctions (also…also…also). The only thing in the statement that would lead someone to infer the chronological priority of Matthew is his attempt to link the canonical gospels with the activity of Peter and Paul. He claims that a Hebrew edition of this gospel was in circulation during the lifetime of the leading apostles, while Mark and Luke were composed some time “after their death.” Notably, in asserting the priority of Hebrew Matthew, he also does not talk about any Greek editions of it.

The source from which Irenaeus derived this dating is not exactly clear: while he knew and valued the now lost commentaries of Papias, he does not credit this chronological data to that source, nor do the excerpts from Papias cited by Eusebius support this sequence. Some opine that Irenaeus was merely writing his personal educated guess as to the order, but who knows?

We rewind a bit back here to Papias, the man who we can say started it all. Papias, it should be noted, reported his sidelights on Mark first (or at least, that’s how Eusebius orders his quotes). After this detailed emphasis on Mark’s care in preserving Peter’s testimony unaltered, Papias’ comment on Matthew is surprisingly brief and vague.

Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.

Looking at it in face value, Papias’ testimony expressly excludes Mark from those who interpreted this “Hebrew” Matthew by portraying him as the interpreter who transcribed the oral teaching of Peter, which might suggest that he held the two to be independent.

Forward to Origen, the earliest author to apparently claim that the canonical order of the gospels represented the chronological sequence in which they were composed. The original context of his statements on Matthew is obviously crucial to their proper interpretation. He was writing to defend the orthodox use of the four Gospels against gnostics who ignored the synoptics and favored the more spiritual John. By interpreting the canonical order as historical, Origen could validate the New Testament as used among all the ‘holy churches of God’ and claim that the gnostics ignored the earliest records of Jesus.

For the record, what do you think about this page’s answer about Clement’s testimony? It focuses on the Greek word progegraphthai, often translated as “written before” or “written first”.

 

[patrick457]

Regarding Eusebius… he had a great advantage over the researchers of today in that he had a great number of books in front of him which have since been lost. Fortunately he normally quoted what earlier historians, such as Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and others had written, rather than provide paraphrases.

Eusebius knew Clement had travelled widely and listened to truly notable men [note plural] from all over the Roman Empire. Eusebius saw Clement as a very reliable witness, and treats the witness of Papias as being a separate confirmatory source.

Actually what Eusebius provides on Clement seems to be a paraphrase of whatever Clement actually wrote. But let’s say for the moment that he preserved Clement’s testimony accurately. If this passage represents the actual content of Clement’s text, his views on the origin of the gospels were distinct from other early Christian writers in two respects: he is the only one who explicitly claims that not only Matthew but Luke was written before Mark and that Mark was written during Peter’s lifetime. Yes, I know what you’ll say, but what I’m saying here is that he is the only one who actually speaks of it plainly: the other stuff you provided here are admittedly less explicit at this point.

Regarding the Anti-Marcionite prologues… these second, third and fourth century Gospel introductions come down to us in both Latin and Greek. Concerning Mark we read: …Mark who was also called Stubfinger, because he had shorter fingers with regard to the other dimensions of his body. He had been the disciple and recorder of Peter, whom he followed, just as he had heard him relating. Having been asked by the brethren in Rome he wrote this short Gospel in the regions of Italy; when Peter heard about it, he approved and authorized it to be read to the church with [his own] authority. ((AMM and RO 148)).

I wonder why you skipped Luke.

Luke was an Antiochian of Syria, a physician by profession. He was a disciple of the apostles and later accompanied Paul until the latter’s martyrdom. He served the Lord without distraction [or ‘without blame’], having neither wife nor children, and at the age of eighty-four he fell asleep in Boeotia, full of the Holy Spirit.

While there were already Gospels previously in existence—that according to Matthew written in Judaea and that according to Mark in Italy—Luke, moved by the Holy Spirit, composed the whole of this Gospel in the parts about Achaia. In his prologue he makes this very point clear, that other Gospels had been written before his, and that it was necessary to expound to the Gentile believers the accurate account of the [divine] dispensation, so that they should not be perverted by Jewish fables, nor be deceived by heretical and vain imaginations and thus err from the truth. … And afterwards the same Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles.

[/INDENT] Regarding St. Augustine… During Jerome’s lifetime, Augustine wrote his: De Consensu Evangelistarum in four volumes. In the first volume he wrote that the received order was Matthew-Mark-Luke and John, but the order of dignity was Matthew-John-Mark and Luke ((AH 1 Book 1: 1-3)).

Because he mentioned Matthew-Mark-Luke in his first volume, this order has often been referred to as: The Augustinian Tradition. But this is a misnomer because in his fourth volume he explains that Mark’s Gospel developed the thoughts of Matthew and Luke.((AH 4 Book 4:10, 11 and RO 211-214)).

Uh, where in Book IV?

 

[patrick457]

Actually, the order the Gospels are read in the Orthodox Lectionary are a bit more jumbled than you suggest. But the general structure is:

John: Read mainly from Pascha until Pentecost Sunday.
Matthew: Divided over seventeen weeks beginning with the Monday of the Holy Spirit (the day after Pentecost). From the twelfth week, it is read on Saturdays and Sundays while Mark is read on the remaining weekdays.
Luke: Divided over nineteen weeks beginning on the Monday after the Elevation of the Holy Cross. From the thirteenth week, it is only read on Saturdays and Sundays, while Mark is read on the remaining weekdays.
Mark: Read during the period of Great Lent on Saturdays and Sundays with the exception of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, and Mondays to Fridays from the twelfth to the seventeenth and the thirtieth to the thirty-second week after Pentecost, the Week of the Prodigal Son, and Meat Fare Week.

This does not count feastdays where one of the four is read.

By the way, why don’t we compare lectionaries?

Not exactly pertinent to the discussion, but I’d like to discuss a phenomenon here known as the Lukan Jump. After the Elevation of the Holy Cross, the reading of Matthew is suddenly interrupted, being replaced with Luke (hence the name). The jump occurs only in the Gospel readings, as there is no corresponding jump in the Epistle. From this point on the Epistle and Gospel readings do not exactly correspond, the Epistles continuing to be determined according to the moveable Paschal cycle and the Gospels being influenced by the fixed cycle.

One of the explanations to this rather strange phenomenon is that the Lukan Jump is related to the chronological proximity of the Elevation of the Cross to the Conception of the Forerunner (St. John the Baptist), celebrated in the East on September 23. In Late Antiquity, this feast marked the beginning of the ecclesiastical New Year. Thus, beginning the reading of Luke toward the middle of September can be understood. The reasoning is theological, and is based on a vision of salvation bistory: John the Baptist’s conception and birth - which only Luke relates - constitutes the first step of the New Economy, as mentioned in the stikhera of the matins of this feast. Later on, the introduction of new feasts, especially that of the Nativity of the Theotokos (September 8th), contributed to the downgrading of the significance of the Conception of St. John.

The Russian Church had abandoned the practice because frankly its rationale was unclear. There was, however, in recent decades a process of returning to the use of the Lukan Jump in certain Russian circles.

I do note that in many lectionaries, they tend to prefer Matthew and Luke over Mark in many places. Personally I think the rationale behind this is because Matthew and Luke are more fuller accounts, with more special material in and between them - Mark by contrast has little special material of its own and would not have offered much in the way of readings. We could also note here another idea which may have contributed to this, of Mark being a mere precis of Matthew.

 

[patrick457]

To quote Isaac Newton, “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes.”%between%

There is no need for a “Special Matthew” or a “Proto Matthew” when one considers that Matthew himself is likely to have been the one to have at least overseen the translation of his Gospel into Greek.

Palestine at the time of Christ was a peculiar and very complicated society. The Romans shared administration with the Council of Jewish judges, known as the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was often in conflict with the civil officials, taxes were paid in Greek money, Roman money was used in commerce and Temple dues paid in Jewish money.

While the first followers of Jesus continued to attend the Temple, they also held meetings of their own. These consisted of prayer, the singing of psalms, listening to teaching from a disciple, meditating on the meaning of the life of Jesus, and breaking bread together.

Matthew, a former tax collector, would have been educationally equipped to provide a structure for the meetings, and this appears to have been the origin of the first Gospel [in Chapter VIII of http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels.pdf”]Authors of the Gospels

it is even shown that major theological concepts in Matthew`s Gospel presume an audience possessing a good understanding of the Old Testament. Matthew uses concepts foreign to Greek thought such as: Nuptial Tent (9: 14-15), Bridegroom (17: 10-13), and Marriage Feast (22: 7)].

…]

As Matthew would have checked all versions [remember, he was a former tax collector, so he certainly knew Greek; he could even have undertaken the translation himself], they would be of equal authority; and since the apostles were still living together, we may presume that several or all of them would have read Matthew’s versions before publication.

No contest here. Indeed out of the four Gospels, Matthew is pretty much the Jewish Gospel. Keen to present Jesus in a Jewish and Scriptural context, Matthew is pretty much filled with “as it is written.”

The Jews in Palestine spoke Aramaic although Hebrew was still a living language [Acts 21:40 and Acts 22:2]. We do not know whether Matthew used Aramaic or Hebrew but versions in both languages would have soon have been put into circulation. Modern analysis has concluded that our Greek Gospel was translated from a Hebrew version [refer to the dozens of examples in Chapter IX of http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels.pdf”]Authors of the Gospels

].

Ah yes, the rabbinic translations of Matthew. I’d just like to note that some of these translations were not just from Greek also from Latin. Many Jewish apologists of the Middle Ages (especially those in Spain) knew Latin and Christians work in that language, which they utilized greatly to refute Christians. I expect they chose Matthew for the same reason I referred to: out of the four Gospels, it is the most Jewish and thus would have resonated with them greatly.

I would like to make a little aside here and apologize to Arch Angel, the OP, for turning the thread into a two-man discussion, wherein theory is pitted against theory and Father is thrown out against Father. And a little thanks to Erich: this is one debate I really enjoyed, and enjoy. Frankly I still kind of doubt that I’ll agree with you, but you’ve really driven me to study stuff further. So, thanks very much.

 

[Erich]

Frankly I still kind of doubt that I’ll agree with you, but you’ve really driven me to study stuff further.

So, there’s still a glimmer of hope that you’ll “come around”

Not that I spent 30 years studying it, but I never did like how the charts and diagrams that purported to explain Markan priority grew ever more complex over the years, in an attempt to account for each new discrepancy/deficiency that scholars identified.

I was first made aware of Barton’s web site churchinhistory.org/ as a result of this e-letter; at the time I couldn’t help but think, “This is what Elizabeth must have felt like when she heard Mary’s greeting.”

So, thanks very much.

http://attilahypnotist.com/cardtrick/images/genie.gif

 

[Erich]

Uh, where in Book IV?

Sorry, Book III.

Chapter 9: One and the same God, the Creator of heaven and earth, is He whom the prophets foretold, and who was declared by the Gospel. Proof of this, at the outset, from St. Matthew’s Gospel.

Chapter 10: Proofs of the foregoing, drawn from the Gospels of Mark and Luke. [1-4 talk about **Luke, 5 talks about Mark

Chapter 11: Proofs in continuation, extracted from St. John’s Gospel. The Gospels are four in number, neither more nor less. Mystic reasons for this.

1. Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the law,— [principles] which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him. So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew’s Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.

 

[Eugenius]

This is an interesting question, I never stopped to wonder how old the apostles were!

 

[patrick457]

So, there’s still a glimmer of hope that you’ll “come around”

Not that I spent 30 years studying it, but I never did like how the charts and diagrams that purported to explain Markan priority grew ever more complex over the years, in an attempt to account for each new discrepancy/deficiency that scholars identified.

I was first made aware of Barton’s web site churchinhistory.org/ as a result of this e-letter; at the time I couldn’t help but think, “This is what Elizabeth must have felt like when she heard Mary’s greeting.”

Only time will tell. For the moment, there are also what I believe to be some deficiencies in the Griesbach-Farmer idea (that led me drifting farther and farther from it - would I classify as an ‘ex-Griesbachian’? ), and I also realize the problems of the Farrer and the Two-source hypotheses and just about every variation in between. Hey, I never said that Farrer (or my personal tweaking of it) is the perfect theory to end all theories.